SUNDAY,
5 NOVEMBER 2006: The comments of the Democratic
Alliance leader at the Oxford Debating society
on Thursday included the following uninformed
statements: "Rich people are good for the
environment: they have fewer children, they can
afford cleaner, efficient technologies, they use
resources more efficiently, they dont chop down
trees for firewood, they dont kill wild animals
for food, and they have the time and the money
to enjoy and protect nature."
"These generalisations
have no foundation in reality. He has used an
international platform to perpetuate the most
abhorrent form of class stereotyping with an underlying
racial tone. There are wealthy people that engage
in environmentally responsible behaviour, so too,
poor people. There are poor people that cause
damage to the environment, but so to are rich
people. However, resource consumption patterns
in developed nations provide ample evidence that
the majority of people living in these nations
use resources inefficiently and wastefully. The
simple fact is that developed nations, are primarily
responsible for almost all forms of environmental
degradation that we have experienced to date.
In fact, unbridled consumerism and unsustainable
consumption and environmentally harmful production
has become a feature of the lifestyles of most
affluent countries," said Minister van Schalkwyk.
The Minister said: "By
making disparaging and derogatory pronouncements
about the impact of subsistence livelihoods on
the environment, demonstrates a flagrant disregard
for the daily struggles of millions of poor people
who live from hand to mouth. The fact is that
many of the poorest of people, particularly on
our continent, have, of necessity, and in line
with their indigenous value systems, found many
ingenious ways of stretching scarce resources
and living in harmony with the natural environment.
Although all contributions to the climate change
debate should be welcomed, this statement of the
DA leader feeds an elitist view of conservation
that is outdated. It is not supported by facts
and is not befitting of the leader of a political
party in South Africa, where we have to mobilise
rich and poor to be co-owners of our conservation
vision " .
"The internationally acclaimed
Stern Review, makes it clear that international
consensus is that wealthy developed nations do
the most damage to the environment, and that poor
developing nations bear the heaviest brunt of
the resulting degradation. This consensus also
forms the basis of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol.
Furthermore, in his report released
last week, former World Bank economist, Sir Nicholas
Stern, concluded, 'Climate change is the greatest
market failure the world has seen.' What is required
is a range of solutions, which require commitment
and concurrent co-ordinated action by several
roleplayers, which include multilateral institutions,
governments, businesses and individuals. Markets
and businesses do have a role to play, but when
you are dealing with a market distortion of this
magnitude, and adaptation challenges as daunting
as those faced by Africa, the free market offers
only limited solutions. "
"The reality is that we
have a technology-rich North, whose technology
is protected by intellectual property rights which
are largely owned by the private sector. On the
other hand, we have a technology-poor South, most
notably Africa, which has been struggling for
decades to gain access to cleaner and more efficient
technologies that are currently unaffordable for
the poor. If we had to leave it to the functioning
of the free market alone, in other words the transfer
of technology solely on a commercial basis, the
required scale of technology transfer would never
materialise.
RIAAN AUCAMP
